The role of autopsy on the diagnosis of missed injuries and on the trauma quality program goal definitions: study of 192 cases

• Autor(a) principal: GONÇALVES,AUGUSTO CANTON
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: PARREIRA,JOSÉ GUSTAVO, GIANVECCHIO,VICTOR ALEXANDRE PERCINIO, LUCARELLI-ANTUNES,PEDRO DE SOUZA, PIVETTA,LUCA GIOVANNI ANTONIO, PERLINGEIRO,JACQUELINE ARANTES GIANNINNI, ASSEF,JOSE CESAR
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69912022000100250
• topic: Autopsy; Trauma Severity Indices; Missed Diagnosis; Multiple Trauma

ABSTRACT Objective: to assess the role of autopsy in the diagnosis of missed injuries (MI) and definition of trauma quality program goals. Method: Retrospective analysis of autopsy reports and patient’s charts. Injuries present in the autopsy, but not in the chart, were defined as “missed”. MI were characterized using Goldman’s criteria: Class I, if the diagnosis would have modified the management and outcome; Class II, if it would have modified the management, but not the outcome; Class III, if it would not have modified neither the management nor the outcome. We used Mann-Whitney’s U and Pearson’s chi square for statistical analysis, considering p<0.05 as significant. Results: We included 192 patients, with mean age of 56.8 years. Blunt trauma accounted for 181 cases, and 28.6% were due to falls from the same level. MI were diagnosed in 39 patients (20.3%). Using Goldman’s criteria, MI were categorized as Class I in 3 (1.6%) and Class II in 11 (5.6%). MI were more often diagnosed in the thoracic segment (25 patients, 64.1% of the MI). The variables significantly associated (p<0.05) to MI were: time of hospitalization < 48 h, severe trauma mechanism, and not undergoing surgery or computed tomography. At autopsy, the values of ISS and NISS were higher in patients with MI. Conclusion: the review of the autopsy report allowed diagnosis of MIs, which did not influence outcome in their majority. Many opportunities of improvement in quality of care were identified.